The one where Tdarcos finds a handheld breathalyzer

[Tdarcos]

Arizona

You get arrested for refusing a FST in Arizona, I just googled it.

Name any case where a person was arrested where the charge was "refusing a field sobriety test" and an appeals court found it valid. I'll save you the trouble because there isn't any.


There are cases where people were convicted for refusing a lawful order, interfering, obstruction, resisting arrest and other cases related to not doing what the police told you to do or failed to stop what you're not supposed to do. But I will bet there is no appellate case upholding a conviction where there was a criminal charge where the act involved refusing to perform an FST.

What the Arizona Supreme Court said was it agreed an FST is a search, however, the Fourth Amendment only prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure." In order to ask for an FST the officer has to have probable cause. But if the officer does have probable cause (slurred speech, smells alcohol, etc.), (s)he is going to arrest you anyway, so there is no reason to take the FST and give them more evidence. The correct thing to say to police any time you interact with them where you did not request their help is, "I don't answer questions, I don't consent to searches, I want a lawyer." Cops hate it when people stand on their rights.

In short, once the officer asks you out of the car and wants you to take an FST, you're pretty much screwed. You're going to jail, pass or fail on the FST.

The one thing you could do to convince me you are right here would be to produce an image

1. I don't really care what you believe.
2. I have no way to produce pictures of anything, have you forgotten I am a 1-legged invalid confined to a bed?
3. I have already stated, I have to go by what I was told at the time it happened, and since people claim they did not have hand-held, breath alcohol testing devices 20+ years ago, I already conceded that it was entirely possible when Shane told me the officer had a BAC testing device and was holding it near my mouth, that Shane could have been pulling my leg.I did not see the device, so I cannot say either way.
4. I don't know how new they are, because I looked it up and found Amazon has them for around $50.

[Casual Observer]

Name any case where a person was arrested where the charge was "refusing a field sobriety test" and an appeals court found it valid. I'll save you the trouble because there isn't any.

What the autistic mind is missing here is that FST is designed to be subjective and it's up to the officer can say anything they want about the results. The number of totally sober people who refuse the test is close to zero so the officer has every reason to just go ahead and arrest for at least "common law DUI'

[Billy Mays]

Name any case where a person was arrested where the charge was "refusing a field sobriety test" and an appeals court found it valid.

The charge is DUI.

I can't believe you are still going on about this after I capitulated, which I shouldn't have done and didn't even mean, but I did.

The reason appellate courts generally don't care is the same reason the whole of society doesn't care, outside of you for whatever reason and CO, and that is because drunk drivers are lowlife scum that drive around killing people. The test could literally be an officer throwing some chicken bones on the ground and lighting up incense and people still wouldn't care as long as the drunk piece of shit gets dragged out of their vehicle and thrown in the back of a cruiser.

[Tdarcos]

The reason appellate courts generally don't care

Oh contraire, sir, they do care. As I stated earlier, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a conviction for DUI because of (although not stated) the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. This means all evidence collected must be valid and lawful, if any evidence is invalid or unlawful, all further evidence collected based on the suspect evidence is inadmissible.

You might say this is unfair because it allows a potentially guilty person to go free, but it is the only tool we have to correct police misconduct. Prosecutors will almost never charge rogue police officers because then other cops might refuse to cooperate. If courts refuse to allow improperly gathered evidence, or appeals courts overturn convictions because of it, it's a much more effective method of correcting behavior than the "once in a blue moon" (or more like "about once every other Sadie Hawkins Day") prosecutions of police misconduct.

In the Kansas case I cited above, the officer administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, which Kansas' courts consider is not yet scientifically reliable. Based on this failure - he passed the other two field sobriety tests - the man was arrested and alcohol tests were taken, which determined he was over the limit.

But all this evidence would not have been collected, save for the officer relying on what is considered an unreliable method. Thus he lacked probable cause to arrest or to collect the other evidence.

Note that there was a dissent. One of the judges felt the other evidence such as smell of alcohol was enough for probable cause to arrest.

society doesn't care, outside of you for whatever reason and CO,

Because we're supposed to be a society based on rule of law, not rule of men. Due process is not mere formality, but it ensures police and prosecutors act responsibly. I can't say it better than the Supreme Court of Canada:

[W]e should never lose sight of the fact that even a person accused of the most heinous crimes, and no matter the likelihood that he or she actually committed those crimes, is entitled to the full protection of the [law]. Short-cutting or short-circuiting those rights affects not only the accused, but also the entire reputation of the criminal justice system.

- R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206.

and that is because drunk drivers are lowlife scum that drive around killing people.

And occasionally, themselves.

The test could literally be an officer throwing some chicken bones on the ground and lighting up incense and people still wouldn't care as long as the drunk piece of shit gets dragged out of their vehicle and thrown in the back of a cruiser.

But the appeals courts can and do care. In the Kansas case I cited, did you read the quote from the court? "In Kansas, the HGN test has no more validity than a Ouija board or a Magic 8-Ball."

Do I want to see drunk drivers off the streets? (Sarcastic voice) No, I'd rather they be out there doing what they do, hitting things and killing people. Of course I want such conduct to stop. But not at any cost. Proper collection of relevent evidence using scientifically accurate methods, combined with civil rights and due process, means those convicted were done so properly, and we can have a high degree of confidence they were guilty as charged. Otherwise you get what the Supreme Court of Canada warned us about. Sloppy police work and inadequate legal protections lead to faulty convictions. Hopefully it doesn't happen much, but it does. And sometimes you get prosecutorial misconduct.

Howard Jarvis, the man responsible for Califoenia's Proposition 13, which slashed and froze property taxes, was set up by people he met to be placed where he could be arrested and prosecuted for drunk driving in the middle of the campaign for the proposition's presentation to voters. Even the judge thought it was suspicious. When the case collapsed and Jarvis was acquitted, it made it clear it was an attempt to discredit the movement to cut property taxes.

Proper protections of those accused not only protect those accused of a crime, but they make it less likely the rest of us have to fear unwarranted arrest. Or conviction.

[Billy Mays]

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all of us command.


With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North, strong and free!


From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.


God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.


O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

So you've got 1 case and something a Canadian said once, seems a bit flimsy.

[AArdvark]

The one thing you could do to convince me you are right here would be to produce an image, or even a drawing based on your speculation, of the hand-held breath testing tool that was used to conduct a test on you via proximity to the device.

[Casual Observer]

All us nerds around here know that's a Star Trek Phaser I. I didn't even have to look it up.